Justice Clarence Thomas split from some of his conservative colleagues in a 7-2 decision to keep the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) funded, despite dissent from Justices Alito and Gorsuch. Sen. Elizabeth Warren's creation of the CFPB has been a point of contention. Thomas's interpretation of the Appropriations Clause is at the center of the debate.
Key Points
Thomas's view on the original intent of the Appropriations Clause
CFPB's funding mechanism bypassing typical appropriations process
Pros
Justice Clarence Thomas's unique perspective on the Appropriations Clause
Confirmation of the funding mechanism for the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau
Cons
Strong dissent from Justices Alito and Gorsuch on the court's decision